PDA

View Full Version : MATZ overfly. RT etc?


ozbeck
17th Nov 2009, 16:47
I would appreciate the comments of some of you experienced flyers with relation to this scenario, since I have heard conflicting opinions on the best way to proceed. If it has been done before please refer me to the appropriate thread.


Scenario: I am flying on a track which will take me directly over a MATZ. I am at an altitude which puts me 3100 ft above the airfiled and I am receiving (for example) Traffic Service from another civilian ATC and squawking. My track would not warrant that I call up the MATZ for onward air traffic service.

So, should I:

a) Ignore (from an RT point of view) the MATZ since I am 100 ft above it and am not required to contact them according to the rules?

b) Request temporary change of frequency to the MATZ to let the MATZ know I am flying over, and then immediately return to my Traffic Service?

c) Request frequency change to that of the MATZ and request MATZ Overfly and receive traffic service from the MATZ for the 10 mile leg.

d) Divert and avoid the MATZ altogether just to avoid the complication.

The follow on question is then - would the answers be any different if I were higher, say for example 600ft above or if I wasn't directly over the ATZ within the MATZ but nearer the periphery?

I think I know what the rules say I am allowed to do, but it would seem a bit "in their face" to fly over without letting them know and I want to be as safe and conventional as possible.

All answers will be gratefully received as long as it doesn't get like the ongoing 'Standard Closing Angle' thread in the Instructors section, which is doing my head in!!!

Gertrude the Wombat
17th Nov 2009, 19:03
If you're so astonishingly lucky as to be in receipt of a traffic service ...

If the military airfield beneath you can provide you with a more appropriate traffic service then the people you're already talking to might suggest you change to them.

You'll probably be wearing the squawk of the people you're talking to, so if the military airfield care about you they can tell who you're talking to and get on the landline. I've had this happen to me - I've had a call saying "xxx request that you ..." until a fast grey pointy thing had landed.

You can ask the people you're talking to "should I call xxx and tell them I'm overflying".

Then there's local knowledge ... some military airfields are well known for being perfectly happy to offer a traffic service for miles around, others are well known for impenetrable American accents that you really would prefer not to have to cope with

Talkdownman
17th Nov 2009, 19:11
You are outside the MATZ.
You are not intending to penetrate the MATZ.
You are not required to contact the Military ATSU.
You do not need to let them know that you are outside their MATZ boundaries.
MATZ Penetration Service does not necessarily include Traffic Service.
You are already in receipt of a useful Traffic service.

There is no complication.

ozbeck
17th Nov 2009, 19:23
Thanks so far.

Talkdownman - you are basically saying that option a) is correct i.e. the rules are the rules. I have heard people say it is courtesy or safer to let them know and to request MATZ overfly. I have always felt uneasy with this since the word 'request' doesn't apply when I have right of way anyway.

XXPLOD
17th Nov 2009, 19:34
I think it can depend on the MATZ in question. Personally I'd be minded to give an RT call, advising the MATZ that I am transiting overhead at **** ft on whatever heading etc... You don't have to do it but I think it's good manners. Gives them the opportunity to advise you anything relevant whilst you are overhead.
That way good relations are maintained and then when you request to transit through a MATZ you are more likely to be favourably received.

Torque Tonight
17th Nov 2009, 19:40
You should get some varied answers to this question as some people on the private forum seem to be MATZ-haters! It is absolutely true that you are under no obligation to contact the ATSU as you are outside the MATZ and the ATZ.

However, if passing through the overhead only 100ft above the MATZ ceiling I would almost always make contact. You are likely to get a good service from them, and both parties will be more aware of each other's movements. I think it's good airmanship. Additionally, if you had an engine failure, whose airspace are you going to be descending into and who do you think you might want to talk to?

Don't be afraid of talking to military air trafic. They are normally extremely helpful and accommodating. Also don't feel 'uneasy' about 'request'. You don't have to request anything if you don't want MATZ penetration - you can merely inform them of your intentions. (You may want to request a service though).

ozbeck
17th Nov 2009, 19:58
So if I do call them up to inform them, would I temporarily leave my initial frequency, speak to the Matz and then immediately return to the original, or would I change to the MATZ and request service from them for the next stage of the flight, until changing to the next logical service provider further down track?

DB6
17th Nov 2009, 20:09
NB If you do call them give them plenty of time if you don't get an immediate reply - the controller is probably talking to military traffic on UHF which you can't hear so will not always be able to reply straight away.

Zulu Alpha
17th Nov 2009, 20:10
If you are getting a traffic service from a civil controller then you will probably have a squawk. The MATZ controller can see your squawk and will know from the number which controller you are talking to and also your height.
I suggest this is sufficient, he knows how to contact you and the civilian controller can warn you of any military or other traffic. So no need for you to change frequency, not that it would do any harm but its not needed.

If like me you do not have a transponder then I would call the military just so that I can tell them my transit height as they cannot read this from the mode C.

ZA

BabyBear
17th Nov 2009, 20:28
For the avoidance of doubt I have never and never intend to transit a MATZ without talking to the controller, however my understanding is that MATZ penetration does not require clearance, as long as there is no ATZ penetration.

Have I got it wrong, or has it changed?

If it is the case then the 100' above the MATZ is not as relevant.

ozbeck
17th Nov 2009, 20:56
BabyBear: I would always call up a MATZ for transit - my question was regarding overfly.

The responses so far reflect exactly what I have been told by other pilots and various instructors also i.e some say no need, some say it is advisable/good airmanship. What I need to do now is to make my own mind up regarding what I will do next time and stick to it, so that I do not dither when the time comes.

It is very useful to hear the rationales (is that a word?) for both sides.

Of course in practice I would go higher than 100ft above if possible in order to avoid inadvertent descent into the MATZ without having requested penetration.

BabyBear
17th Nov 2009, 21:28
Likewise, ozbeck, I would always make contact if in the vicinity and advocate good airmanship in having significant margin of error as you suggest, however the point I am questioning is whether there is a requirement to get clearance to penetrate a MATZ? I agree it would be poor airmanship not to request penetration, however it does change the legalities somewhat, especially if there was inadvertent descent.

As you say, the requirements, as posted by Talkdownman, are not necessarily the options all will be comfortable with.

ShyTorque
17th Nov 2009, 21:29
Ozbeck, truth is, the agency inside the MATZ cannot issue you with a "clearance to overfly" because they don't control the airspace you intend to fly through.

However, you may inform them of your intentions to overfly, if you so wish.

Vone Rotate
17th Nov 2009, 21:40
As you say, you are above the MATZ so you don't need to call them up..

However in my opinion, I would consider it good 'airmanship' to call any ATSU you are passing near or over even if not obliged to. As Gertrude the Wombat said he was near a MATZ and not in contact but probably would have made things easier for all concerned if he had been (not having a pop, just using it as an example)

I would and do always call an airfield Im over flying and as for any conflicting traffic info.

TractorBoy
18th Nov 2009, 08:11
There is no legal requirement to call them even if you fly straight through the MATZ, as long as you stay clear of the ATZ.

Whether this is a good idea, though, is another matter..... :uhoh:

englishal
18th Nov 2009, 08:40
Where is this? In my experience in your scenario the civilian ATC would dump you and tell you to freecall "whoeveritismatz" unless they have an agreement with.

Anyway assuming they don't, if in receipt of a traffic service I'd just carry on with my routing, as you'd be squwarking, and no doubt the mil could see you anyway.

However if NOT in receipt of a traffic service, I'd call the matz radar controller and ask for a traffic service. When he asks your routing just tell him / her you'd be routing via their overhead but remaining clear of the MATZ.

Cusco
18th Nov 2009, 09:53
It's good airmanship in the scenario you describe to call up the MATZ and tell them where you are.

They may give you a squawk and a Basic or even a Traffic service if they're busy:

In my neck of the woods I always speak to the cousins as their CMATZ gets busy with all manner of tin during the week.

Even though the CMATZ recently reduced in size, operating as I do from very close to the MATZ I wouldn't dream of not speakng to them.

The attitude 'I don't have to speak to the MATZ if I'm near or passing through, so I won't' is unhelpful and potentially dangerous.

Cusco.

modelman
18th Nov 2009, 13:02
I once called up Brize requesting a transit and got the odd reply of a clearance (with altitude) and 'remain clear of CAS' Couldn't get a call back to clarify and climbed over the top.
Rang the controller next day and he commended what I had done but to keep trying to call them as he could have advised another a/c to go over the top on a reciprocal heading.
If you have box 2 you can always tell atc you are giving the matz a quick call and will be straight back.

MM

BEagle
18th Nov 2009, 17:05
Although Brize does not have a MATZ, it has a Class D CTR, some years ago I once called up advising that I would be routing overhead from south to north climbing from FL40 to FL100, remaining clear of CAS.

I was 'ordered', not requested, by some shrill female to fly 'not above' FL60 for some obscure reason. Which I declined. "I tried to be helpful, but I need to climb to FL100 for high-rotational spinning and it takes quite a while. So thanks, squawking 7000 and changing back to Quiet. Good day."

Not a bad plan to advise the aerodrome that you're overflying the MATZ - but if they try to vector you around the universe, don't be afraid of politely declining the offer.

ozbeck
18th Nov 2009, 18:00
The consensus is clearly to call up the MATZ and notify them of ones intentions (despite the fact there is no obligation) and this is how I will handle it in future.

I suppose it is a good example of where airmanship goes beyond the actual rules.

Many thanks for the replies and the different angles.

Gertrude the Wombat
18th Nov 2009, 19:06
As Gertrude the Wombat said he was near a MATZ and not in contact but probably would have made things easier for all concerned if he had been
Not at all. The other 99 times I've flown past that MATZ they had no interest in me at all - what d'you think they'd rather do, make one phone call or handle 100 radio conversations with someone who didn't want a service outside their airspace that they weren't offering anyway?

Gertrude the Wombat
18th Nov 2009, 19:09
The attitude 'I don't have to speak to the MATZ if I'm near or passing through, so I won't' is unhelpful and potentially dangerous.
Did anyone say that? The context of this question was that you're receiving a traffic service from someone else and wearing their squawk, thus immediately easily identifiable to and contactable by the MATZ controller should they happen to be interested.

If you were listening out to London Information with the volume turned down and the transponder turned off that would be a different question to which different answers might be appropriate.

fisbangwollop
18th Nov 2009, 19:24
I would expect the unit that you are recieving a TS from to either suggest you call the MATZ or indeed notify them on your behalf that you will be passing through their overhead. That is what would happen here at "Scottish Info".....in relation to our local MATZ at Leuchars...any traffic I am giving a BS to will in general be notified to Leuchars and they will advise me if they want to talk to it....sometimes they decline the need to work it but if they have half a dozen Typhoons wazzing around at high speed it sometimes seems a good idea!! :cool::cool::cool:

Lister Noble
18th Nov 2009, 20:27
One reasoning says obey the rules,they don't really want to talk to you if you are not in their controlled airspace,as they've got enough of their own traffic.
They will know within a millimetre where you are.
The other reasoning says even if you're outside their limits they can advise you of heavy traffic,which if you fly near could really spoil your day.
When I've actually required a Matz transit round here ,the USAF have always been most helpful,I've found if you talk slowly,they answer slowly.
Never had reason to call RAF bases but I'm sure they're the same.:)

aluminium persuader
18th Nov 2009, 20:46
Except if you're in their radar overhead they won't have a clue where you are or where you're going and at best can pass traffic on your last observed position. Then something fast and pointy launches, accelerating & climbing.

This sort of thing has been talked to death. Why on earth wouldn't you talk to them? It doesn't cost you anything and may save you everything.

Obedience of rules is fine, but which is the most pertinent station to work?

ap:confused:

Halfbaked_Boy
18th Nov 2009, 20:58
a) Ignore (from an RT point of view) the MATZ since I am 100 ft above it

Is your altimeter really that accurate?

Or that of the possible traffic about to launch off the deck beneath you?

Is the MATZ QFE the same (in essence) as the QNH/QFE you're operating on?

The best solution is, as somebody already mentioned, drop a call to the station you're talking to, out of courtesy, to check if it's worth ringing up Marham/Waddington/Scampton et al.

It only takes about five seconds :)

FREDAcheck
18th Nov 2009, 21:20
A couple of further points:

I believe not all MATZ ATC have radar at all times. Thus they may not know you're there, even if you're sqawking Mode C
A MATZ may have instrument approaches, which could extend more than 3000 AGL (and more than 10 miles out).

As with any ATZ with instrument approaches, if within 10 miles or below about 3500 AGL, I think best to talk unless you're getting a traffic service from someone else. And even then I'd probably ask the traffic service provider if I should call the MATZ (if they haven't already dumped me to the MATZ).

englishal
19th Nov 2009, 09:52
This sort of thing has been talked to death. Why on earth wouldn't you talk to them? It doesn't cost you anything and may save you everything.
Because you're receiving a traffic service from someone else, who will either ask you to contact the MATZ controller or notify them by your behalf or have other knowledge (traffic for example). I'd suggest that it is bad airmanship to dump a traffic Service to then free call a MATZ just to let them know you're there.

I'm still trying to think where this is, where would one be receiving a traffic service from a civillian unit and not the military who's MATZ you're going to fly over? It may be that the civil unit has an agreement with the MATZ, for example Yeovil and Yeovilton (although Yeovil is non radar). One can be in the hold over Yeovil, talking to Yeovil and not Yeovilton, or vice versa because they coordinate with each other. Yeovilton know you're talking to Yeovil due to your sqwark and if they need to call you they will do so via Yeovil.